Posted by nmchnv on 10/27/2013 7:53:00 PM (view original):I also like "he never touched home". Lets face it, if the shoe was on the other foot, every Red Sox fan would be citing Rule 7.06.
Some classic Boston expert on everything comments from a local blog.Obviously that umpire was same referee who made the call at the Patriots game last weekendIronic that both the Sox last night, and Pat's last week, lost to umps/refs enforcing little used rulesOn a regular season game, that play would have never been called - this is twice Jim Joyce has blown the outcome of a game...
The batter should have been called out after Craig interfered with Middlebrooks under Section 7.08(b)"A runner is declared out if (b) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball;Rule 7.08(b) Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not.Worst call in history of major league baseballThe ump was in favor of the cardinals. He didn't want the sox winning from the beginningmove on my *** file a protestDef a bad call! Middlebrooks fell cause he got tackled. Where was he supposed to go? Disappear so the guy wouldn't trip on him?? These bad calls always happen to Boston

firstly rule 7.08(b) says the runner is declared out not the batter (it says the batter should have been called out.....)

Also it is referring to a 'thrown ball' (meaning the ball while it's in the air not the act of throwing the ball or catching the ball) or a fielder attempting to make a play a batted ball and it states 'intentionally'. These are all key in understanding how this rule 'may' apply in this case.

So, the ball was hit to Dustin (playing 2B) and he threw home to get the runner coming home. Nobody interfered in this part of the play at all. So the rule doesn't apply to this part of the play. Now did anyone intentionally interfere with the catcher's throw to 3rd base? No. The ball on it's way to third base is not intentionally interfered with. It's a bad throw.

Rule 7.08(b) Comment...this is referring only to a batted ball, not a thrown ball. Since the infielder that played the batted ball (Pedoria) was not hindered in any way, this comment doesn't apply to the play at all.

The fact the runner never touched home, doesn't matter. The fact the Umpire declared him safe at home due to being obstructed. Being declared safe is the same as touching the base in this case. So he doesn't have to, in order for the run to count.

As for what is Middlebrooks supposed to do etc....Well that is what sucks, because it's likely no matter what he does, the runner trips over him. You can see the runner looking to see where the ball has gone as he gets up. He does not notice Middlebrooks on the ground. He turns to head to plate and that is when he sees where 3rd baseman is. The runner has no way to avoid tripping over him. Unfortunately, the obstruction rule, does take intent into account...So again as I said before, the umps got it correct. Hate the rule, not person that enforces it.

Admitted, this rule is rarely applied. But not because it is ignored etc but because it rarely comes up. I've been an ump for 10+ years in slo-pitch, I'd say I would only need 1 hand to count times I've called this. I'll bet for ML umps the times they've had to call it at the ML level is even less.

that was several comments from the experts. Does Buchholz have a B league Brad Pitt in Kalifornia look going? If there were not enough reasons to root against the Red Sox, those grotesque beards can qualify as a reason as well.

My dad defined an expert... Ex is a has been and a pert is a drip under pressure!

When I became an ump, I realized how ignorant I was about many rules. I'd being playing the game for a LONG time... Now I just chuckle when somebody who 'thinks' they know the rules tells me what a rule is etc etc. I always try to remember how ignorant I used to be and that allows me to be tolerant in these cases.. Actually, I like working 2 umpire games with umps with more experience than me. It's amazing, the things one can still learn after all these years...

Posted by deathinahole on 10/28/2013 3:12:00 PM (view original):My wife and I were watching a repeat of a show from 25something years ago. They mentioned the Dodgers/As World Series, and I turned to my wife and said "who do you think will win?"

She said "oh, is that who's in the World Series?"

Beyond the bruising from her hitting my shoulder for forcing her into a weak moment, it speaks loudly to how much we care about this. IT'S HOCKEY SEASON.

Gentlemen, I'm attending my very first World Series game tonight. Was hoping the Deadbirds would pull it out last night so that I could possibly see a "clincher" but it wasn't to be. Nevertheless, looking forward to it. Here's hoping Game 5 is as interesting as the last few games have been...

Posted by edsortails on 10/28/2013 5:15:00 PM (view original):it would seem there is a future MLB umpiring position for aginor...he has that cop/ump mentality of superiority.....

'I am an umpire....only I know what is right.....I tolerate the ignorant'

Have been doing slo pitch for over 10+ years and help run training clinics etc. So yes, I know the rules fairly well. True there are some differences when looking at the MLB rules, still a lot of them are basically the same.

I tell all people I've trained..firstly, you if think you will not make mistake...forget that, you will. We are all human. Secondly, nobody knows ALL the rules perfectly (just too many of them ..in slo-pitch they change on a regular basis). That is why I stated I enjoy working with others umpires. No matter how long you've been doing it..something to learn.

Problem I had (as many do) after playing the game for so long, we 'think' we know the rules. I learned quickly when I started umpiring, just how much I really didn't know. There were rules, I was absolutely positive I knew (would've bet on it)...only to find out I was so wrong! So, when a player comes to argue something he/she are absolutely positive of ..remembering I had MANY misconception about some rules... helps me be respectful to their argument. I've seen some umps be rather condescending to a player in these cases. I feel that's totally wrong and work hard to not be that way.

Ignorant in the context used means 'lacking knowledge'..not meant as a slight or insult.